Welcome to the Piano World Piano ForumsOver 2.5 million posts about pianos, digital pianos, and all types of keyboard instruments
Join the World's Largest Community of Piano Lovers
(it's free)
It's Fun to Play the Piano ... Please Pass It On!

I'm in two places with this. I spent a lifetime playing music as I imagined it since I was untaught, though this was influenced by the "classical" music that I heard on the radio. Late in life I discovered the formal bits. Knowing that there is such a thing as meter, the general nature of Baroque vs. Romantic, that "dance form" originally had a dance to it, those things allowed me to use these elements to bring out more in the music. It was still a creative process. I also learned that opinion can also swing to a rather rigid direction. There are purists who insist that Baroque must be played in only one manner, or that tempo or dynamic and phrase markings must be adhered to, to the letter. One hears such "perfect" playing which is also devoid of life.

What I prefer (and am getting) is to understand what is beneath music and use it. That includes understanding style and periods, but not in a strict formulaic way, and definitely not just through dynamic markings.

Originally Posted By: music-P

I am currently learning m. clementi sonatina op 36. no 5. I don't actually like its dynamics so i changed it became more expressive and legato, more of chopin I think. But I feel I am disrespecting clementi because of it.

We don't know how Music-P is playing it, or what dynamic markings s/he means. I remember that the phrase marks were discussed in the teacher forum a while back, something about them being unnecessary or getting in the way, preventing a better playing of the piece. There was also something about the student thinking about and working with the piece. But that would also be guided thinking and working. That goes full circle to the idea of knowing what is underneath it.

The OP talked about playing in a new style, meaning making something sound the way they want it to rather than a more traditional approach might be - at least that is what I got from the OP. So if you are making a sound that is different on purpose, I'm all for that. But if you make it because you are not able to od otherwise, then I think perhaps you are short-changing yourself.

But doesnât that lead to a paradox of opportunity where those who have the skills to play a piece as intended neednât do so while those who lack the skills to play as intended can do nothing?

For the aspiring virtuoso it perhaps makes sense to do things âproperly' in a coherent order and to be patient, but if itâs all for personal pleasure, why impose a regime? As I remember it, the sheet music industry had a profitable sideline turning out easy arrangements of most of the tricky well-known classics just for those who wanted to play for the fun of it. Even serious students must have played some of these on their way up.

In any case, whether we are deadly serious or just it in for the fun, we can still make leaps and bounds while engaging in music recreationally. Such leaps may not always be in approved directions but if they lead us to focus our minds on tasks which we deem important for ourselves I see no evidence that it matters.

This is from a self-taught perspective. I can see how it might not correspond with that of a teacher.

The OP said they wanted to change the dynamics of a Clementi sonatina to sound more like Chopin, so that is what I am addressing. It sounded to me like the OP was saying they are choosing to make the dynamics more Romantic and dramatic than perhaps a Classical sentimentality would allow. I was stating that is not a problem so long as the conscious decision was being made to do so by the pianist because of a desire to make that kind of sound, rather than say someone who ignored dynamic markings because they were too lazy to work them out.

edited to add: as a teacher, I have yet to encounter someone who is incapable of doing dynamics. It may be harder for some than others, but every student I've had is capable of them.

Play the notes as printed with dynamics, articulation and phrasing that don't disagree with the score and then you'll hear what the composer is telling you.

First problem: are the dynamics, articulations, and phrasing the ones that the composer put in there? Or are you seeing something put in by an editor, or could it even be an arrangement to make it easier for a student?

When you play things "the way you want" or "with your style", you have basically decided to bypass the effort required to gain the skill needed to play it the way the author intended.

In fact, if you have a musical vision then you have become capable of fulfilling it. You will need to get the technical ability - technique - to carry out what imagine. If self-taught, you will also discover that there are musical principals beneath what you are imagining, which you have to get. All of this will go full circle toward serious and sometimes painful study. That study might actually be heavier than any preconceived traditional route.

People are talking about the student who takes shortcuts and bends to music to be able to play it effortlessly. I think that is a different thing.

The problem with doing that is that it may tend to keep you playing things at a very comfortable level which may prevent growth as a player.

You've heard of "no pain, no gain" ?

It applies to almost anything in which there is some level of effort required in order to achieve various levels of skill.

When you play things "the way you want" or "with your style", you have basically decided to bypass the effort required to gain the skill needed to play it the way the author intended.

That is fine but it also may rob you of the joy of playing with a higher level of expertise.

If that does not matter to you ... have at it.

Yes, of course, to all the above but Iâm not in any respect advocating an easy way out, nor am I talking about what matters to me, rather Iâm trying to get across a more general point about priorities.

That those who approach music recreationally are just as capable as those who approach it 'seriously' of being assiduous in their efforts but that their focus (in recreation) is oftentimes diverted to other aspects of their musicianship which they see to be important and which they are passionate to pursue. This could be true, for example, of any of the outstanding rock or jazz musicians of our time. It could also be true of any of the members of ABF who want to become âgood at somethingâ other than playing a classical piece exactly as was intended.

Music consists in more than just gaining the specific skill you outline. It consists in more than one expertise.

I agree. There are many varied ways to pursue music and to become very knowledgeable and skilled with whatever you enjoy doing.

I guess this discussion revolves around your opening statement ...

Originally Posted By: music-P

I am currently learning m. clementi sonatina op 36. no 5.

I guess I would say that if you are not playing it at least close to the way the author intended, you are not really learning "IT".

You are learning something of your own creation. To be sure, you may be using the same notes, or most of them, but it is not the same piece.

So, it is all about the meaning of "learning" a particular piece. Most will consider "learning it" to mean learning to play it in the manner intended by the author. If you wish to learn a different way to play it, fine ... but you will be misleading most others if you say you are "learning" the piece or have "Learned" the piece ... when in fact, you have not.

Bottom line: We have not heard the OP play, so we don't actually know what s/he is doing. We also don't know what the OP thinks the music is calling for. It is possible that the "deviation" might actually be close to how it should be played, and the "correct version" imagined is something that is way too dry and mechanical. We don't know.

Bottom line: We have not heard the OP play, so we don't actually know what s/he is doing. We also don't know what the OP thinks the music is calling for. It is possible that the "deviation" might actually be close to how it should be played, and the "correct version" imagined is something that is way too dry and mechanical. We don't know.

The OP talked about playing in a new style, meaning making something sound the way they want it to rather than a more traditional approach might be - at least that is what I got from the OP. So if you are making a sound that is different on purpose, I'm all for that. But if you make it because you are not able to od otherwise, then I think perhaps you are short-changing yourself.

Why can't someone make a sound that is different on purpose from one he doesn't like as much as the one he imagines when he hears it (or even haphazardly discovers trying to play it as written) and still not be able to reproduce a sound he's not particularly interested in making? And who are you to judge whether a person is shortchanging themselves? Maybe they are serving themselves better than they (or any pedagogue) could any other way, by having found an occasion and perhaps the most direct path (for them!) to hearing what they need to hear and creating what they need to create?

People draw inspiration and find their muse from all sorts of arbitrary external sources. As one poet put it, a lot can depend on " a red wheel barrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens." Why not on a piece of music they never found themselves motivated to play as written?

Of course, but that has diddly squat to do with my point which is about eschewing rules, not descent into sloth.

Look to Morodiene's and dmd's post to see exactly what it has to do with your point.

In fact both dmd and Morodiene have drifted away from the issue which interested me but in any case neither of them has claimed that the rejection of formalized (i.e rule-based) study is an impediment to self-betterment.

The OP talked about playing in a new style, meaning making something sound the way they want it to rather than a more traditional approach might be - at least that is what I got from the OP. So if you are making a sound that is different on purpose, I'm all for that. But if you make it because you are not able to od otherwise, then I think perhaps you are short-changing yourself.

Why can't someone make a sound that is different on purpose from one he doesn't like as much as the one he imagines when he hears it (or even haphazardly discovers trying to play it as written) and still not be able to reproduce a sound he's not particularly interested in making? And who are you to judge whether a person is shortchanging themselves? Maybe they are serving themselves better than they (or any pedagogue) could any other way, by having found an occasion and perhaps the most direct path (for them!) to hearing what they need to hear and creating what they need to create?

People draw inspiration and find their muse from all sorts of arbitrary external sources. As one poet put it, a lot can depend on " a red wheel barrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens." Why not on a piece of music they never found themselves motivated to play as written?

I think you are misconstruing what I'm saying because I'm a teacher. Please read what I've said. I am perfectly OK with someone doing something because they like the way it sounds (whether discovered by mistake or on purpose). What I'm saying is if they don't know HOW to play piano or don't want to bother it, I think they are missing out on finding even more satisfaction and capability of expressing themselves. So I JUDGE they are shortchanging themselves. Judging isn't a bad word, and it condemns no one. It's an opinion.

In fact both dmd and Morodiene have drifted away from the issue which interested me but in any case neither of them has claimed that the rejection of formalized (i.e rule-based) study is an impediment to self-betterment.

Youâll have to make your own case.

How you miss this, I won't understand, but I guess I won't hold it against you: rules come from practice which in turn sets a standard. Standards, of course, can be broken. But if you can never play the standard, what claim do you have to say you're playing it? More so, if you're enabling yourself by changing something only so you can 'play it,' how are you ever improving? You aren't. You'll be stuck in a trap of enabling yourself to adjust everything else to your own level instead of pushing your level.

And you bring up simplifications as if that's the point - that just sounds thick-headed to me. You can play something simplified badly just as you could with anything difficult. We're talking about what's on the page.

If you still don't understand, I'm afraid you never will.

By the way, you sound like a troll.

_________________________
A linguistics major who loves piano and knows too much theory/history without knowing how to play it as well as he wants to be able to.

Let's hope that changes. Taught piano for almost two years and currently working on:"Going back to the basics..."

But if you can never play the standard, what claim do you have to say you're playing it? More so, if you're enabling yourself by changing something only so you can 'play it,' how are you ever improving? You aren't. You'll be stuck in a trap of enabling yourself to adjust everything else to your own level instead of pushing your level.

Nowhere in this discussion has anyone talked about playing music differently out of an inability to play it in an expected manner. Nor can you or any of us here know the abilities of anyone posting here, unless we have actually heard what these people can or cannot do.

You seem to have really knotted yourself up. What could you possibly mean by:-

Originally Posted By: kayvee

rules come from practice which in turn sets a standard.

Do you mean rules are derived from practice? Surely rules precede engagement?Can you cite just one example of a rule which 'comes' from practice?

Quote:

Standards, of course, can be broken. But if you can never play the standard, what claim do you have to say you're playing it?

As I hinted earlier, I leave it to others to argue the claim âI can play thisâ.There's a difference of opinion? Who cares?

Itâs an idle discussion and doesnât interest me.

Quote:

More so, if you're enabling yourself by changing something only so you can 'play it,' how are you ever improving? You aren't. You'll be stuck in a trap of enabling yourself to adjust everything else to your own level instead of pushing your level.

You're begging the question by inventing a trap which doesn't exist.

Today I (hypothetical) want to play my Chopin for beginners, but that's just a snapshot. I intend to improve over the passage of time. After a few years I'll have a crack at the real thing.

Do you see how that works?

Quote:

And you bring up simplifications as if that's the point - that just sounds thick-headed to me. You can play something simplified badly just as you could with anything difficult. We're talking about what's on the page.

I was addressing Morodieneâs point, not yours - you've evidently failed to comprehend that too.

I told you that it was an idea I rejected. I think it's a myth and in the unlikely event that you and I have any worthwhile discourse in the future Iâll explain why.

Quote:

By the way, you sound like a troll.

Funny you should say that. I was curious about your history so I took a look at some of your other posts and quickly noticed youâre given to making snide remarks, and that in only a few short weeks. Now that is rapid progress....

The OP talked about playing in a new style, meaning making something sound the way they want it to rather than a more traditional approach might be - at least that is what I got from the OP. So if you are making a sound that is different on purpose, I'm all for that. But if you make it because you are not able to od otherwise, then I think perhaps you are short-changing yourself.

Why can't someone make a sound that is different on purpose from one he doesn't like as much as the one he imagines when he hears it (or even haphazardly discovers trying to play it as written) and still not be able to reproduce a sound he's not particularly interested in making? And who are you to judge whether a person is shortchanging themselves? Maybe they are serving themselves better than they (or any pedagogue) could any other way, by having found an occasion and perhaps the most direct path (for them!) to hearing what they need to hear and creating what they need to create?

People draw inspiration and find their muse from all sorts of arbitrary external sources. As one poet put it, a lot can depend on " a red wheel barrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens." Why not on a piece of music they never found themselves motivated to play as written?

I think you are misconstruing what I'm saying because I'm a teacher. Please read what I've said. I am perfectly OK with someone doing something because they like the way it sounds (whether discovered by mistake or on purpose). What I'm saying is if they don't know HOW to play piano or don't want to bother it, I think they are missing out on finding even more satisfaction and capability of expressing themselves. So I JUDGE they are shortchanging themselves. Judging isn't a bad word, and it condemns no one. It's an opinion.

I am sorry if I misconstrued what you meant. I guess I was more focused on what the OP meant, which I construed as his not liking the sound of the piece as written. This is what he said:

Originally Posted By: MusicP

I am currently learning m. clementi sonatina op 36. no 5. I don't actually like its dynamics so i changed it became more expressive and legato, more of chopin I think....

The OP talked about playing in a new style, meaning making something sound the way they want it to rather than a more traditional approach might be - at least that is what I got from the OP. So if you are making a sound that is different on purpose, I'm all for that. But if you make it because you are not able to od otherwise, then I think perhaps you are short-changing yourself.

Why can't someone make a sound that is different on purpose from one he doesn't like as much as the one he imagines when he hears it (or even haphazardly discovers trying to play it as written) and still not be able to reproduce a sound he's not particularly interested in making? And who are you to judge whether a person is shortchanging themselves? Maybe they are serving themselves better than they (or any pedagogue) could any other way, by having found an occasion and perhaps the most direct path (for them!) to hearing what they need to hear and creating what they need to create?

People draw inspiration and find their muse from all sorts of arbitrary external sources. As one poet put it, a lot can depend on " a red wheel barrow glazed with rainwater beside the white chickens." Why not on a piece of music they never found themselves motivated to play as written?

I think you are misconstruing what I'm saying because I'm a teacher. Please read what I've said. I am perfectly OK with someone doing something because they like the way it sounds (whether discovered by mistake or on purpose). What I'm saying is if they don't know HOW to play piano or don't want to bother it, I think they are missing out on finding even more satisfaction and capability of expressing themselves. So I JUDGE they are shortchanging themselves. Judging isn't a bad word, and it condemns no one. It's an opinion.

I am sorry if I misconstrued what you meant. I guess I was more focused on what the OP meant, which I construed as his not liking the sound of the piece as written. This is what he said:

Originally Posted By: MusicP

I am currently learning m. clementi sonatina op 36. no 5. I don't actually like its dynamics so i changed it became more expressive and legato, more of chopin I think....

But if you can never play the standard, what claim do you have to say you're playing it? More so, if you're enabling yourself by changing something only so you can 'play it,' how are you ever improving? You aren't. You'll be stuck in a trap of enabling yourself to adjust everything else to your own level instead of pushing your level.

Nowhere in this discussion has anyone talked about playing music differently out of an inability to play it in an expected manner. Nor can you or any of us here know the abilities of anyone posting here, unless we have actually heard what these people can or cannot do.

I suggested it in the third or fourth post on the thread. However, what I said was that one should avoid playing differently specifically because they can't play it "as intended" or "in the correct style" (however you would care to word that). I never suggested that the OP specifically could not play as written, but rather, all I suggested was to ensure that one makes a distinction between conscious choice and a lack of ability.

_________________________
Every day we are afforded a new chance. The problem with life is not that you run out of chances. In the end, what you run out of are days.